The Voynich Ninja

(03-12-2025, 07:27 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Chinese astronomy divides the ecliptic by 28 mansions, which are linked to the moon.

That is the lunar Chnese calendar.  But the Chinese used also a so-called You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that divided the zodiac into 24 sectors of 15 degrees each.

All the best, --stolfi.

(03-12-2025, 09:09 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Oriental paintings have people with oriental face features wearing oriental clothes:... And Voynich Manuscript has blonde ladies wearing European clothes.

Sigh.  Please, people, can you pay attention a bit?

Yes, yes, yes, the vellum, the ink, the pen are European.  The binding side, the page layout, the direction of writing, the parag format are European. The letter shapes are arguably inspired on European letters.  The Zodiac signs, the nymphs, the hairdos, the hats, the dresses, the dragons, the pangolin, the snakes and eyes in the roots, the pharma jars, the crossbow, the wavy sun rays, the merlons, the nebuly boundaries between Heavens and Earth, the scalloped fields and borders, are all European...

... but none of that is evidence that the language or contents are European!  

Those decorative details only show that the Scribe who drew them was almost certainly European.  They don't even indicate that the Author was European, because there is no evidence that the Scribe was the Author himself.

It is a gross logical error to conclude that, because of all those facts, the language must be European. A non-sequitur.  And it is from that error, only, that follows the "consensus" that the text must be encrypted with a very sophisticated "code".  An error which could explain why, in 80+ years, the best cryptographers in the world have been unable to crack even a tiny chip of that "code". 

All the best, --stolfi

(03-12-2025, 10:51 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is a gross logical error to conclude that, because of all those facts, the language must be European. A non-sequitur.  And it is from that error, only, that follows the "consensus" that the text must be encrypted with a very sophisticated "code".  An error which could explain why, in 80+ years, the best cryptographers in the world have been unable to crack even a tiny chip of that "code". 

I would believe the Chinese theory in an instant absolutely and without any questions if on the first folio of the manuscript in plain good old Latin the author wrote: "herein you will find my rendering of a few Chinese medicinal books read to me by a Shaolin Monk and written in a script of my invention" or anything similar, in fact any cleartext that would explain the purpose of any aspect of the manuscript. Without plaintext annotations this looks more like a book of secrets than anything else.

(03-12-2025, 10:51 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And it is from that error, only, that follows the "consensus" that the text must be encrypted with a very sophisticated "code". 

What is your proof for this assertion?  This seems simply untrue to me.

(03-12-2025, 10:28 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-12-2025, 07:27 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Chinese astronomy divides the ecliptic by 28 mansions, which are linked to the moon.

That is the lunar Chnese calendar.  But the Chinese used also a so-called You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that divided the zodiac into 24 sectors of 15 degrees each.

All the best, --stolfi.

If you want to try and locate it there, it's still not based on the 12 signs of the Babylonian Zodiac

(03-12-2025, 11:24 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would believe the Chinese theory in an instant absolutely and without any questions if on the first folio of the manuscript in plain good old Latin the author wrote: "herein you will find my rendering of a few Chinese medicinal books read to me by a Shaolin Monk and written in a script of my invention" or anything similar

Sure, that would have solved the problem.  But the fact that such a plain intro is missing does not imply that it was meant to be a secret.  

As long as the book remained in possession of the author, such an intro would be totally unnecessary. 

Why wasn't such an intro added when the book passed to another owner?  Maybe it was, but then it probably was a separate sheet of paper.  Like Marci's letter when he sent the VMS to Kircher.  Which may have easily got lost, or used as tinder or birdcage liner, ... Or removed by a book trader who thought he could get more money for the book if he claimed it was Roger Bacon's.  (No, I am not referring to Voynich, but to Widemann.  Or maybe to Voynich, who knows...)

Or maybe the book left the Author on his death, like when it went from Barschius to Marci.

In library archives one finds many manuscript books from the time which have no such introduction.  That is where paleographers justify their salaries...

All the best, --stolfi

(04-12-2025, 12:42 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it's still not based on the 12 signs of the Babylonian Zodiac

Sure.  And the Chinese sectors are not named "Abiril", "May", etc.  either.

But why should we assume that those signs were taken from the original source?   In my version of the COT, they would have been added by the Author, when he commissioned the scribing onto vellum, to specify the approximate correspondence between each "Chinese" 30-degree sector and the closest European Zodiac sign. 

All the best, --stolfi

(03-12-2025, 11:24 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-12-2025, 10:51 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And it is from that error, only, that follows the "consensus" that the text must be encrypted with a very sophisticated "code". 

What is your proof for this assertion?  This seems simply untrue to me.

Why did that "consensus" develop?  There is no clear indication on the VMS that it is encrypted.  

People concluded that it was encrypted with a complex cipher because all attempts to decipher it assuming a simple substitution cipher and any European language failed.  And they did not seriously consider non-European languages because "it is obviously European, idiot"...

All the best, --jorge

(04-12-2025, 01:38 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-12-2025, 11:24 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is your proof for this assertion?  This seems simply untrue to me.

Why did that "consensus" develop?  There is no clear indication on the VMS that it is encrypted.  

People concluded that it was encrypted with a complex cipher because all attempts to decipher it assuming a simple substitution cipher and any European language failed.  And they did not seriously consider non-European languages because "it is obviously European, idiot"...

This is just repeating the statement that I am questioning your evidence for.  Where is the evidence that a complex cypher consensus exists because (and only because?) people could not decrypt the VM with any European language?

I am doubtful that this consensus exists.  There are very few things we can say about the VM that have consensus.  There are plenty of people - particularly influential voices - who are still open to alternatives, such as that the text is meaningless.  

For those that do think it is likely a cypher, there may be many reasons.  Out of principle, I would not automatically jump to saying they believe this because they have only considered European languages and never considered non-European languages. People here have been open to "non European" languages in the past.  People can and have suspected a cypher based on the nature of the text even when they have not tried to decrypt Voynichese with any language, European or otherwise.

I think that "consensus" is one of these words that is often used incorrectly in discussions here.

Usually, there isn't any, and even when there seems to be, it doesn't really matter too much.

This is not the main point here, though. 
One may call it "consensus", or "most common view" or "default view", but the real reason behind this view of the Voynich MS is historic.

Voynich called it a cipher manuscript from day one, because to him it looked like one. Not just to him, of course. It has consistently been called a cipher manuscript throughout modern history, and it is listed in the Beinecke catalogues as a cipher manuscript.

I guess "default" or "most common" fits the situation bettter.

One alternative has been considered from time to time, namely that it should be an otherwise unrecorded and/or lost language, but these were never very popular.

Personally, I no longer think that this is a cipher in any traditional meaning of the word. Maybe that is a minority view - no problem. The 'Chinese theory' (misnomer) is also a minority view. Also no problem.